I think it's little more than a sharp increase in bias. The physiological sciences are heavily driven by moneyed interests and the social sciences tend to be fu

I think it's little more than a sharp increase in bias. The physiological sciences are heavily driven by moneyed interests and the social sciences tend to be full of people who are extremely politically motivated, and homogeneous, in their 'research.' Bias is always bad, but at least when it's counter-balanced with bias in the opposite direction both sides can help bring each other closer towards the truth by remaining extremely critical of one another. But bias without any counter balance is particularly dangerous as it leads to a feedback resulting in even greater extremism and bias: social media in a nutshell, but it's not limited to just social media of course. Compare science that's goal is to find a truth to science that's goal is to prove an assumed truth, and you'll see the standard of research sharply decline. There are some systemic issues in play for sure. Publish or perish means researchers need to put out new publishable work, or find a new career. And that in turn also introduces a publication bias. Spend 5 months researching a hypothesis only to find that it's wrong? Well that's pretty much 5 months wasted because journals are not so fond of publishing negative results. Massage the numbers a bit to get that positive result though, and you're good to go. Pretty nasty incentive systems there. And now add into the fact far more people than ever before are pursuing postgraduate education. It's a mess.